104562 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2024 / Notices 

established a schedule for the conduct 

of the preliminary phase of the subject 

investigations (89 FR 93651, November 

27, 2024). Subsequently, the Department 

of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) extended 

the deadline for its initiation 

determinations from December 11, 2024 

to December 31, 2024 (89 FR 102113, 

December 17, 2024). The Commission, 

therefore, is revising its schedule to 

conform with Commerce’s new 

schedule. 

The Commission must reach 

preliminary determinations by January 

27, 2025, and the Commission’s views 

must be transmitted to Commerce 

within five business days thereafter, or 

by February 3, 2025. 

For further information concerning 

this proceeding, see the Commission’s 

notice cited above and the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

Authority: These investigations are 

being conducted under authority of title 

VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice 

is published pursuant to § 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 17, 2024. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30487 Filed 12–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Summary of Commission Practice 

Relating to Administrative Protective 

Orders 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Summary of Commission 

practice relating to administrative 

protective orders. 

SUMMARY: Since February 1991, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has published in the 

Federal Register reports on the status of 

its practice with respect to breaches of 

its administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APOs’’) under title VII of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 in response to a direction 

contained in the Conference Report to 

the Customs and Trade Act of 1990. 

Over time, the Commission has added to 

its report discussions of APO breaches 

in Commission proceedings other than 

under title VII and violations of the 

Commission’s rules, including the rule 

on bracketing business proprietary 

information (the ‘‘24-hour rule’’) title 19 

of the Code of Federal Regulations. This 

notice provides a summary of APO 

breach investigations completed during 

fiscal year 2024. This summary 

addresses APO breach investigations 

related to proceedings under both title 

VII and section 337 of the Tariff Act of 

1930. The Commission intends for this 

summary to inform representatives of 

parties to Commission proceedings of 

the specific types of APO breaches 

before the Commission and the 

corresponding types of actions that the 

Commission has taken. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Barton, Secretary to the Commission, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

telephone (202) 205–2786. Hearingimpaired individuals may obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal at (202) 

205–1810. General information 

concerning the Commission is available 

on its website at https://www.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statutory 

authorities for Commission 

investigations provide for the release of 

business proprietary information 

(‘‘BPI’’) or confidential business 

information (‘‘CBI’’) to certain 

authorized representatives in 

accordance with requirements set forth 

in the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure. Such statutory and 

regulatory authorities include: 19 U.S.C. 

1677f; 19 CFR 207.7; 19 U.S.C. 1337(n); 

19 CFR 210.5, 210.34; 19 U.S.C. 2252(i); 

19 CFR 206.17; 19 U.S.C. 4572(f); 19 

CFR 208.22; 19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(7)(A); 

and 19 CFR 207.100–207.120. The term 

‘‘CBI’’ is defined in 19 CFR 201.6(a) and 

includes the term ‘‘proprietary 

information’’ within the meaning of 19 

U.S.C. 1677f(b). The discussion below 

describes APO breach investigations 

that the Commission completed during 

fiscal year 2024, including descriptions 

of actions taken in response to any 

breaches. 

Since 1991, the Commission has 

published annually a summary of its 

actions in response to violations of 

Commission APOs and rule violations. 

See 88 FR 85303 (Dec. 7, 2023); 87 FR 

69331 (Nov. 18, 2022); 86 FR 71916 

(Dec. 20, 2021); 85 FR 7589 (Feb. 10, 

2020); 83 FR 42140 (Aug. 20, 2018); 83 

FR 17843 (Apr. 24, 2018); 82 FR 29322 

(June 28, 2017); 81 FR 17200 (Mar. 28, 

2016); 80 FR 1664 (Jan. 13, 2015); 78 FR 

79481 (Dec. 30, 2013); 77 FR 76518 

(Dec. 28, 2012); 76 FR 78945 (Dec. 20, 

2011); 75 FR 66127 (Oct. 27, 2010); 74 

FR 54071 (Oct. 21, 2009); 73 FR 51843 

(Sept. 5, 2008); 72 FR 50119 (Aug. 30, 

2007); 71 FR 39355 (July 12, 2006); 70 

FR 42382 (July 22, 2005); 69 FR 29972 

(May 26, 2004); 68 FR 28256 (May 23, 

2003); 67 FR 39425 (June 7, 2002); 66 FR 

27685 (May 18, 2001); 65 FR 30434 

(May 11, 2000); 64 FR 23355 (Apr. 30, 

1999); 63 FR 25064 (May 6, 1998); 62 FR 

13164 (Mar. 19, 1997); 61 FR 21203 

(May 9, 1996); 60 FR 24880 (May 10, 

1995); 59 FR 16834 (Apr. 8, 1994); 58 FR 

21991 (Apr. 26, 1993); 57 FR 12335 

(Apr. 9, 1992); and 56 FR 4846 (Feb. 6, 

1991). This report does not provide an 

exhaustive list of conduct that will be 

deemed to be a breach of the 

Commission’s APOs. The Commission 

considers APO breach investigations on 

a case-by-case basis. 

As part of the Commission’s efforts to 

educate practitioners about the 

Commission’s current APO practice, the 

Secretary to the Commission 

(‘‘Secretary’’) issued in January 2022 a 

sixth edition of An Introduction to 

Administrative Protective Order Practice 

in Import Injury Investigations (Pub. No. 

5280). This document is available on the 

Commission’s website at https://

www.usitc.gov. 

I. In General 

A. Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Investigations 

The current APO application form for 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations, which the Commission 

revised in July 2024, requires an APO 

applicant to agree to: 

(1) Not divulge any of the BPI 

disclosed under this APO or otherwise 

obtained in this investigation and not 

otherwise available to him or her, to any 

person other than— 

(i) Personnel of the Commission 

concerned with the investigation, 

(ii) The person or agency from whom 

the BPI was obtained, 

(iii) A person whose application for 

disclosure of BPI under this APO has 

been granted by the Secretary, and 

(iv) Other persons, such as paralegals 

and clerical staff, who (a) are employed 

or supervised by and under the 

direction and control of the authorized 

applicant or another authorized 

applicant in the same firm whose 

application has been granted; (b) have a 

need thereof in connection with the 

investigation; (c) are not involved in 

competitive decision making for an 

interested party which is a party to the 

investigation; and (d) have signed the 

acknowledgment for clerical personnel 

in the form attached hereto (the 

authorized applicant shall also sign 

such acknowledgment and will be 

deemed responsible for such persons’ 

compliance with this APO); 

(2) Use such BPI solely for the 

purposes of the above-captioned 

Commission investigation or for U.S. 

judicial or review pursuant to the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2024 / Notices 104563 

United State-Mexico-Canada Agreement 

(USMCA) the determination resulting 

from such investigation of such 

Commission investigation; 

(3) Not consult with any person not 

described in paragraph (1) concerning 

BPI disclosed under this APO or 

otherwise obtained in this investigation 

without first having received the written 

consent of the Secretary and the party 

or the representative of the party from 

whom such BPI was obtained; 

(4) Whenever documents and 

materials (e.g., word processing or 

computer discs) containing such BPI are 

not being used, store such material in a 

locked file cabinet, vault, safe, or other 

suitable container (N.B.: [S]torage of BPI 

on so-called hard disk computer media 

or similar media is to be avoided, 

because mere erasure of data from such 

media may not irrecoverably destroy the 

BPI and may result in violation of 

paragraph C of this APO); 

(5) Not enter BPI into a shared 

computing resource (e.g., database, 

network file share, cloud environment) 

unless access to the resource is 

restricted to persons authorized to 

receive the BPI; 

(6) Serve all materials containing BPI 

disclosed under this APO as directed by 

the Secretary and pursuant to section 

207.7(f) of the Commission’s rules; 

(7) Transmit each document 

containing BPI disclosed under this 

APO: 

(i) Via secure electronic means, as 

authorized by the Secretary, or 

(ii) With a cover sheet identifying the 

document as containing BPI, 

(iii) With all BPI enclosed in brackets 

and each page warning that the 

document contains BPI, and 

(iv) Within two envelopes, the inner 

one sealed and marked ‘‘Business 

Proprietary Information—To be opened 

only by [name of recipient]’’, and the 

outer one sealed and not marked as 

containing BPI; 

(8) Comply with the provision of this 

APO and section 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules; 

(9) Make true and accurate 

representations in the authorized 

applicant’s application and promptly 

notify the Secretary of any changes that 

occur after the submission of the 

application and that affect the 

representations made in the application 

(e.g., change in personnel assigned to 

the investigation); 

(10) Report promptly and confirm in 

writing to the Secretary any possible 

breach of this APO; 

(11) Acknowledge that breach of this 

APO may subject the authorized 

applicant and other persons to such 

sanctions or other actions as the 

Commission deems appropriate, 

including the administrative sanctions 

and actions set out in this APO; and 

(12) Whenever an authorized 

applicant is representing parties in any 

litigation or dispute settlement 

regarding the same, similar, or related 

matter, or other matter that otherwise 

encompasses the same information, as 

the relevant investigations, proactively 

disclose representation(s) as follows: 

(i) Indicate the proceeding and name 

the parties to it (including whomever 

the authorized applicant represents) on 

the antidumping/countervailing duty 

APO application; 

(ii) Acknowledge that failure to 

provide this information may result in 

denial, modification, and/or revocation 

of APO access; and 

(iii) During the period of APO access, 

acknowledge continuing obligation to 

notify the Secretary of any changes to 

the information provided in the 

application. 

The APO form for antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations also 

provides for the return or destruction of 

the BPI obtained under the APO on the 

order of the Secretary, at the conclusion 

of the investigation, or at the completion 

of judicial review. The BPI disclosed to 

an authorized applicant under an APO 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigation generally may remain in 

the applicant’s possession during the 

final phase of the investigation. 

The APO further provides that breach 

of an APO may subject an applicant to: 

(1) Disbarment from practice in any 

capacity before the Commission along 

with such person’s partners, associates, 

employer, and employees, for up to 

seven years following publication of a 

determination that the order has been 

breached; 

(2) Referral to the United States 

Attorney; 

(3) In the case of an attorney, 

accountant, or other professional, 

referral to the ethics panel of the 

appropriate professional association; 

(4) Such other administrative 

sanctions as the Commission determines 

to be appropriate, including public 

release of, or striking from the record 

any information or briefs submitted by, 

or on behalf of, such person or the party 

he represents; denial of further access to 

business proprietary information in the 

current or any future investigations 

before the Commission, and issuance of 

a public or private letter of reprimand; 

and 

(5) Such other actions, including but 

not limited to, a warning letter, as the 

Commission determines to be 

appropriate. 

APOs issued in cross-border long-haul 

trucking (‘‘LHT’’) investigations, 

conducted under the USMCA 

Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 4571– 

4574 (19 U.S.C. 4501 note), and 

safeguard investigations, conducted 

under the statutory authorities listed in 

19 CFR 206.1 and 206.31, contain 

similar (though not identical) 

provisions. 

B. Section 337 Investigations 

APOs in section 337 investigations 

differ from those in title VII 

investigations: There is no set form as 

with the title VII APO application, and 

provisions of individual APOs may 

differ depending on the investigation 

and the presiding administrative law 

judge. However, in practice, the 

provisions are often similar in scope 

and applied quite similarly. Any person 

seeking access to CBI during a section 

337 investigation (including, for 

example, outside counsel for parties to 

the investigation and technical experts 

and their staff who are employed for the 

purposes of the investigation) is 

required to read the APO, file a letter 

with the Secretary indicating agreement 

to be bound by the terms of the APO, 

agree not to reveal CBI to anyone other 

than another person permitted access by 

the APO, and agree to utilize the CBI 

solely for the purposes of that 

investigation. 

In general, an APO in a section 337 

investigation will define what kind of 

information is CBI and direct how CBI 

is to be designated and protected. The 

APO will state which persons may have 

access to CBI and which of those 

persons must sign onto the APO. The 

APO will provide instructions on how 

CBI is to be maintained and protected 

by labeling documents and filing 

transcripts under seal. It will provide 

protections for the suppliers of CBI by 

notifying them of a Freedom of 

Information Act request for the CBI and 

providing a procedure for the supplier 

to seek to prevent the release of the 

information. There are provisions for 

disputing the designation of CBI and a 

procedure for resolving such disputes. 

Under the APO, suppliers of CBI are 

given the opportunity to object to the 

release of the CBI to a proposed expert. 

The APO requires a person who 

discloses CBI, other than in a manner 

authorized by the APO, to provide all 

pertinent facts to the supplier of the CBI 

and to the administrative law judge and 

to make every effort to prevent further 

disclosure. Under Commission practice, 

if the underlying investigation is before 

the Commission at the time of the 

alleged breach or if the underlying 

investigation has been terminated, a 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
104564 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2024 / Notices 

1Procedures for investigations to determine 

whether a prohibited act, such as a breach, has 

occurred and for imposing sanctions for violation 

of the provisions of a protective order issued during 

a North American Free Trade Agreement or USMCA 

panel or committee proceedings are set out in 19 

CFR 207.100–207.120. The Commission’s Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations conducts the initial 

inquiry. 

person who discloses CBI, other than in 

a manner authorized by the APO, 

should report the disclosure to the 

Secretary. See 19 CFR 210.25, 210.34(c). 

Upon final termination of an 

investigation, the APO requires all 

signatories to the APO to either return 

to the suppliers or, with the written 

consent of the CBI supplier, destroy the 

originals and all copies of the CBI 

obtained during the investigation. 

Commission Rule 210.34(d) requires 

APO signatories to report in writing to 

the Commission immediately upon 

learning that CBI obtained through an 

APO is the subject of (1) a subpoena; (2) 

a court or an administrative order (other 

than an order of a court reviewing a 

Commission decision); (3) a discovery 

request; (4) an agreement; or (5) any 

other written request, if the request or 

order seeks disclosure, by the APO 

signatory or any other person, of the 

subject CBI to a person who is not, or 

may not be, permitted access to that 

information pursuant to an APO or 

Commission Rule. Individuals who 

willfully fail to comply with this 

requirement may be subject to sanctions 

in accordance with Commission Rule 

210.34(e). 

The Commission’s regulations 

provide for the imposition of certain 

sanctions if a person subject to the APO 

violates its restrictions. The 

Commission keeps the names of the 

persons being investigated for violating 

an APO confidential unless the 

Commission issues a public sanction or 

in other circumstances where the 

Commission determines that such 

disclosure is necessary. 19 CFR 

210.34(c)(1). The possible sanctions are: 

(1) An official reprimand by the 

Commission. 

(2) Disqualification from or limitation 

of further participation in a pending 

investigation. 

(3) Temporary or permanent 

disqualification from practicing in any 

capacity before the Commission 

pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15(a). 

(4) Referral of the facts underlying the 

violation to the appropriate licensing 

authority in the jurisdiction in which 

the individual is licensed to practice. 

(5) Making adverse inferences and 

rulings against a party involved in the 

violation of the APO or such other 

action that may be appropriate. 19 CFR 

210.34(c)(3). 

Commission employees are not 

signatories to the Commission’s APOs 

and do not obtain access to BPI or CBI 

through APO procedures. Consequently, 

they are not subject to the requirements 

of the APO with respect to the handling 

of BPI and CBI. However, Commission 

employees are subject to strict statutory 

and regulatory constraints concerning 

BPI and CBI, and they face potentially 

severe penalties for noncompliance. See 

18 U.S.C. 1905; title 5, U.S. Code; and 

Commission personnel policies 

implementing the statutes. Although the 

Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) limits the 

Commission’s authority to disclose any 

personnel action against agency 

employees, this should not lead the 

public to conclude that no such actions 

have been taken. 

II. Investigations of Alleged APO 

Breaches 

The Commission conducts APO 

breach investigations for potential 

breaches that occur in title VII, 

safeguard, and LHT investigations, as 

well as for potential breaches in section 

337 investigations that are before the 

Commission or have been terminated.1

Administrative law judges handle 

potential APO breaches in section 337 

investigations when the breach occurred 

and is discovered while the underlying 

investigation is before the 

administrative law judge. The 

Commission may review any decision 

that the administrative law judge makes 

on sanctions in accordance with 

Commission regulations. See 19 CFR 

210.25, 210.34(c). 

For Commission APO breach 

investigations, upon finding evidence of 

an APO breach or receiving information 

that there is reason to believe that one 

has occurred, the Secretary notifies 

relevant Commission offices that the 

Secretary has opened an APO breach 

file and that the Commission has 

commenced an APO breach 

investigation. The Commission then 

notifies the alleged breaching parties of 

the alleged breach and provides them 

with the voluntary option to proceed 

under a one- or two-step investigatory 

process. Under the two-step process, 

which was the Commission’s historic 

practice, the Commission determines 

first whether a breach has occurred and, 

if so, who is responsible for it. This is 

done after the alleged breaching parties 

have been provided an opportunity to 

present their views on the matter. The 

breach investigation may conclude after 

this first step if: (1) the Commission 

determines that no breach occurred and 

issues a letter so stating; or (2) the 

Commission finds that a breach 

occurred but concludes that no further 

action is warranted and issues a 

warning letter. If the Commission 

determines that a breach occurred that 

may warrant further action, the 

Commission will then determine what 

sanction, if any, to impose. Before 

making this determination, the 

Commission provides the breaching 

parties with an opportunity to present 

their views on the appropriate sanction 

and any mitigating circumstances. The 

Commission can decide as part of either 

the first or second step to issue a 

warning letter. A warning letter is not a 

sanction, but the Commission will 

consider a warning letter as part of any 

subsequent APO breach investigation. 

The Commission recognizes that the 

two-step process can result in 

duplicative work for the alleged 

breaching party and Commission staff in 

some APO breach investigations. For 

example, parties who self-report their 

own breach often address mitigating 

circumstances and sanctions in their 

initial response to the Commission’s 

letter of inquiry on the breach. But, 

under the Commission’s two-step 

process, they must await a Commission 

decision on breach and then submit 

again their views on mitigating 

circumstances and sanctions. To 

streamline this process and accelerate 

processing times, the Commission offers 

alleged breaching parties the option to 

voluntarily elect a one-step APO breach 

investigation process. Under this 

process, the Commission will determine 

simultaneously whether a breach 

occurred and, if so, the appropriate 

sanction to impose, if any. Under either 

process, the alleged breaching party has 

the opportunity to submit affidavits 

reciting the facts concerning the alleged 

breach and mitigating factors pertaining 

to the appropriate response if a breach 

is found. 

Sanctions for APO violations serve 

three basic interests: (a) preserving the 

confidence of submitters of BPI/CBI that 

the Commission is a reliable protector of 

BPI/CBI; (b) disciplining breachers; and 

(c) deterring future violations. As the 

Conference Report to the Omnibus 

Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 

observed: ‘‘[T]he effective enforcement 

of limited disclosure under [APO] 

depends in part on the extent to which 

private parties have confidence that 

there are effective sanctions against 

violation.’’ H.R. Conf. Rep. 100–576, at 

623 (1988). 

The Commission has worked to 

develop consistent jurisprudence, not 

only in determining whether a breach 

has occurred, but also in selecting an 

appropriate response. In determining 

the appropriate response, the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2024 / Notices 104565 

Commission generally considers 

mitigating factors such as the 

unintentional nature of the breach, the 

lack of prior breaches committed by the 

breaching party, the corrective measures 

taken by the breaching party, and the 

promptness with which the breaching 

party reported the violation to the 

Commission. The Commission also 

considers aggravating circumstances, 

especially whether persons not 

authorized under the APO had access to 

and viewed the BPI/CBI. The 

Commission considers whether there 

have been prior breaches by the same 

person or persons in other 

investigations and whether there have 

been multiple breaches by the same 

person or persons in the same 

investigation. 

The Commission’s rules permit an 

economist or consultant to obtain access 

to BPI/CBI under the APO in a title VII, 

safeguard, or LHT investigation if the 

economist or consultant is under the 

direction and control of an attorney 

under the APO, or if the economist or 

consultant appears regularly before the 

Commission and represents an 

interested party who is a party to the 

investigation. See 19 CFR 

207.7(a)(3)(i)(B) and (C); 19 CFR 

206.17(a)(3)(i)(B) and (C); and 19 CFR 

208.22(a)(3)(i)(B) and (C). Economists 

and consultants who obtain access to 

BPI/CBI under the APO under the 

direction and control of an attorney 

nonetheless remain individually 

responsible for complying with the 

APO. In appropriate circumstances, for 

example, an economist under the 

direction and control of an attorney may 

be held responsible for a breach of the 

APO by failing to redact APO 

information from a document that is 

subsequently filed with the Commission 

and served as a public document, or for 

retaining BPI/CBI without consent of the 

submitter after the termination of an 

investigation. This is so even though the 

Commission may also hold the attorney 

exercising direction or control over the 

economist or consultant responsible for 

the APO breach. In section 337 

investigations, technical experts and 

their staff who are employed for the 

purposes of the investigation are 

required to sign onto the APO and agree 

to comply with its provisions. 

The records of Commission 

investigations of alleged APO breaches 

in antidumping and countervailing duty 

cases, section 337 investigations, 

safeguard investigations, and LHT 

investigations are not publicly available 

and are exempt from disclosure under 

the Freedom of Information Act, 5 

U.S.C. 552. See, e.g., 19 U.S.C. 1677f(g); 

19 U.S.C. 1333(h); 19 CFR 210.34(c). 

The two types of breaches most 

frequently investigated by the 

Commission involve: (1) the APO’s 

prohibition on the dissemination or 

exposure of BPI or CBI to unauthorized 

persons; and (2) the APO’s requirement 

that the materials received under the 

APO be returned or destroyed and that 

a certificate be filed with the 

Commission indicating what actions 

were taken after the termination of the 

investigation or any subsequent appeals 

of the Commission’s determination. The 

dissemination of BPI/CBI usually occurs 

as the result of failure to delete BPI/CBI 

from public versions of documents filed 

with the Commission or transmission of 

proprietary versions of documents to 

unauthorized recipients. Other breaches 

have included the failure to bracket 

properly BPI/CBI in proprietary 

documents filed with the Commission, 

the failure to report immediately known 

or suspected violations of an APO, and 

the failure to adequately supervise nonlawyers in the handling of BPI/CBI. 

Occasionally, the Commission 

conducts APO breach investigations that 

involve members of a law firm or 

consultants working with a firm who 

were granted access to APO materials by 

the firm although they were not APO 

signatories. In many of these cases, the 

firm and the person using the BPI/CBI 

mistakenly believed an APO application 

had been filed for that person. The 

Commission has determined in all of 

these cases that the person who was a 

non-signatory, and therefore did not 

agree to be bound by the APO, could not 

be found to have breached the APO. 

However, under Commission rule 

201.15 (19 CFR 201.15), the Commission 

may take action against these persons 

for good cause shown. In all cases in 

which the Commission has taken such 

action, it decided that the non-signatory 

appeared regularly before the 

Commission, was aware of the 

requirements and limitations related to 

APO access, and should have verified 

their APO status before obtaining access 

to and using the BPI/CBI. The 

Commission notes that section 201.15 

may also be available to issue sanctions 

to attorneys or agents in different factual 

circumstances in which they did not 

technically breach the APO, but their 

action or inaction did not demonstrate 

diligent care of the APO materials, even 

though they appeared regularly before 

the Commission and were aware of the 

importance that the Commission places 

on the proper care of APO materials. 

The Commission has held routinely 

that the disclosure of BPI/CBI through 

recoverable metadata or hidden text 

constitutes a breach of the APO even 

when the BPI/CBI is not immediately 

visible without further manipulation of 

the document. In such cases, breaching 

parties have transmitted documents that 

appear to be public documents in which 

the parties have removed or redacted all 

BPI/CBI. However, further inspection of 

the document reveals that confidential 

information is actually retrievable by 

manipulating codes in software or 

through the recovery of hidden text or 

metadata. In such instances, the 

Commission has found that the 

electronic transmission of a public 

document with BPI/CBI in a recoverable 

form was a breach of the APO. 

The Commission has cautioned 

counsel to ensure that each authorized 

applicant files with the Commission 

within 60 days of the completion of an 

import injury investigation or at the 

conclusion of judicial or binational 

review of the Commission’s 

determination, a certificate stating that, 

to the signatory’s knowledge and belief, 

all copies of BPI/CBI have been returned 

or destroyed, and no copies of such 

materials have been made available to 

any person to whom disclosure was not 

specifically authorized. This 

requirement applies to each attorney, 

consultant, or expert in a firm who has 

access to BPI/CBI. One firm-wide 

certificate is insufficient. 

Attorneys who are signatories to the 

APO in a section 337 investigation 

should inform the administrative law 

judge and the Secretary if there are any 

changes to the information that was 

provided in the application for access to 

the CBI. This is similar to the 

requirement to update an applicant’s 

information in title VII investigations. 

In addition, attorneys who are 

signatories to the APO in a section 337 

investigation should send a notice to the 

Commission if they stop participating in 

the investigation or the subsequent 

appeal of the Commission’s 

determination. The notice should 

inform the Commission about the 

disposition of CBI obtained under the 

APO that was in their possession, or the 

Commission could hold them 

responsible for any failure of their 

former firm to return or destroy the CBI 

in an appropriate manner. 

III. Specific APO Breach Investigations 

Case 1. The Commission determined 

that two attorneys from different law 

firms who collaborated on a joint brief 

filed with the Court of International 

Trade in connection with a title VII 

investigation each breached the APO. 

Both attorneys breached the APO by 

publicly filing a brief that contained 

unredacted BPI, and then one of the 

attorneys breached the APO a second 

time by failing to completely redact the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
104566 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2024 / Notices 

BPI from the corrected version of the 

brief. 

The first breach occurred when two 

law firms filed a joint public brief before 

the Court of International Trade that 

contained unredacted BPI in a footnote. 

Neither law firm identified the BPI as 

confidential or redacted it from the 

public brief during the review process. 

One of the law firms then filed the brief 

through the Court of International 

Trade’s electronic filing system, where 

it remained publicly available until the 

next day. The second law firm 

identified the breach and notified the 

first law firm, which requested the 

brief’s removal. 

A second breach occurred when the 

first law firm electronically filed a 

corrected, second version of the brief. In 

the corrected version, the BPI was 

identified as such, but the redaction 

process failed to completely remove the 

BPI from the document, thereby leaving 

it retrievable by electronic means. The 

corrected version was also uploaded to 

the Court of International Trade’s 

electronic filing system, where the 

document remained available for six 

days. One of the law firms also 

distributed the corrected version to five 

individuals employed by its client. The 

second law firm discovered that the BPI 

was improperly redacted, and the first 

law firm notified the Court of 

International Trade of the error, 

resulting in the removal of the corrected 

version. The Commission determined to 

hold both law firms responsible for the 

first breach and to hold the first law 

firm responsible for the second breach, 

given its role in preparing the corrected 

version of the brief and its responsibility 

for properly removing the BPI. 

In determining whether to issue a 

sanction for the breach, the Commission 

considered the following mitigating 

factors: (1) both breaches were 

inadvertent and unintentional; (2) one 

of the law firms discovered both 

breaches; (3) after discovering the 

second breach, the breaching parties 

took prompt action to remedy it and 

prevent further dissemination of BPI; (4) 

the breaching parties implemented new 

procedures to prevent future similar 

breaches; and (5) the attorneys involved 

had not previously breached an APO in 

the two-year period preceding the dates 

of these breaches. The Commission also 

considered the following aggravating 

factors: (1) unauthorized individuals 

had access to and presumably viewed 

the BPI; (2) one of the breaching parties 

violated the APO in two different ways; 

and (3) one of the breaching parties 

failed to follow firm procedures for 

protecting BPI in the second breach. 

The Commission issued a private 

letter of reprimand to one attorney from 

the first law firm, who was found to 

bear the ultimate responsibility for both 

breaches. The Commission also issued a 

warning letter to an attorney from the 

second law firm who assisted in the 

preparation of the brief. The 

Commission found that a warning letter 

was appropriate because that attorney 

had an opportunity to review the 

footnote while drafting the brief and to 

flag the BPI for redaction and removal. 

Case 2. The Commission determined 

that three individuals breached the APO 

issued in a title VII investigation when 

they publicly filed and served to 

unauthorized parties a public version of 

a brief that contained unredacted BPI. 

The law firm responsible for the 

breach filed an original and revised 

confidential version of its brief on the 

Commission’s Electronic Document 

Information System (‘‘EDIS’’). The 

revised confidential version of the brief 

contained bracketing changes to BPI, 

including the complete redaction of two 

tables that contained BPI. The firm then 

filed a public version of the original 

confidential brief that did not include 

the redactions to the tables. The firm 

also served that public version of the 

brief to all parties on the public service 

list. Approximately two hours later, 

counsel from another law firm notified 

the breaching parties that the public 

version of the brief contained 

unredacted BPI. Upon receiving that 

notification, the breaching parties 

contacted the parties on the public 

service list and requested confirmation 

of destruction of the public version of 

the brief. The next day, the breaching 

parties contacted the Commission to 

request removal of the public version of 

the brief from EDIS. The breaching 

parties later filed a corrected public 

version of the brief, with the BPI 

redacted. 

In determining whether to issue a 

sanction for the breach, the Commission 

considered the following mitigating 

factors: (1) the breach was unintentional 

and inadvertent; and (2) the breaching 

parties took prompt action to remedy 

the breach and prevent further 

dissemination of BPI; (3) the law firm 

promptly reported the breach to the 

Commission; and (4) the individuals 

involved had not previously breached 

an APO in the two-year period 

preceding the date of this breach. The 

Commission also considered as an 

aggravating factor that unauthorized 

individuals had access to and 

presumably viewed the BPI. 

The Commission determined to issue 

a private letter of reprimand to the 

supervisory attorney who reviewed and 

approved the filing of the original 

public version of the brief and failed to 

ensure that legal support staff complied 

with the APO. The Commission also 

determined to issue a private letter of 

reprimand to an office manager and a 

warning letter to a legal assistant for 

their respective roles in preparing the 

brief and contributing to the breach. 

Case 3. The Commission determined 

that a law firm breached the APO issued 

in a section 337 investigation when it 

filed on EDIS and served to its clients 

a public version of a document that 

contained CBI from another party. 

Two attorneys at the law firm were 

responsible for reviewing the public 

document for CBI. One of the attorneys 

received opposing counsel’s proposed 

redactions to the document, but the 

receiving attorney reportedly failed to 

provide those redactions to the legal 

secretary who was assisting with 

preparing the document for filing. 

Thereafter, the attorney forwarded the 

document that the legal secretary 

prepared to a second attorney for 

review, along with opposing counsel’s 

requested redactions. After the second 

attorney completed a review for CBI, the 

first attorney reviewed the document 

one more time before instructing the 

legal secretary to file the public 

document. The attorney also sent the 

finalized version to the law firm’s 

clients. The next day, opposing counsel 

notified the attorney that the document 

contained unredacted CBI. The attorney 

instructed a firm paralegal to contact the 

Commission to request that the 

document be removed from EDIS. The 

attorney also contacted the clients who 

received a copy of the document to 

request its destruction. 

In determining whether to issue a 

sanction for the breach, the Commission 

considered the following mitigating 

factors: (1) the breach was inadvertent 

and unintentional; (2) the law firm took 

prompt corrective action to investigate 

the breach and prevent further 

dissemination of CBI; (3) the law firm 

promptly self-reported the breach; (4) 

the law firm implemented new 

procedures to prevent against similar 

breaches in the future; and (5) the 

individuals involved had not been 

found to have breached an APO in the 

two years preceding the date of the 

breach. The Commission also 

considered the following aggravating 

factors: (1) the law firm did not discover 

its own breach; and (2) the breach 

resulted in exposure of CBI to 

unauthorized individuals. 

The Commission issued a private 

letter of reprimand to both attorneys: 

one who reviewed and redacted the 

document, approved the public version 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2024 / Notices 104567 

for filing, and served it on the firm’s 

clients, and the other who reviewed and 

redacted the document but failed to 

protect the other party’s CBI. 

Case 4. The Commission determined 

that an economic consultant breached 

the APO in a title VII investigation by 

making BPI available to unauthorized 

parties on three separate occasions. 

The document that was the subject of 

all three breaches was a presentation 

slide prepared by the consultant’s firm. 

The slide at issue contained unredacted 

BPI that revealed information in a chart 

about pricing data. The first breach 

occurred when copies of the slide were 

distributed during a meeting that 

included individuals who were not 

authorized under the APO to receive 

BPI. The second breach occurred at a 

second meeting, to additional 

unauthorized individuals who were not 

present at the first meeting. The third 

breach occurred at a public Commission 

hearing when the economic consulting 

firm displayed the slide in question on 

a large screen and distributed paper 

copies. At the conclusion of the 

presentation, a Commission employee 

approached the economic consultant to 

express concerns that the slide had 

exposed BPI. At the conclusion of the 

hearing, the economic consultant 

attempted to retrieve the paper copies 

from the recipients, which the 

Commission then collected. 

In determining whether to issue a 

sanction for the breach, the Commission 

considered the following mitigating 

factors: (1) all three breaches were 

inadvertent and unintentional; (2) the 

breaching party took prompt action to 

remedy the third breach and prevent 

further dissemination of BPI; (3) the 

breaching party implemented new 

procedures to prevent against similar 

breaches in the future; and (4) the 

individual involved had not previously 

breached an APO in the two-year period 

preceding the dates of these breaches. 

The Commission also considered the 

following aggravating factors: (1) all 

three breaches resulted in the exposure 

of BPI to unauthorized individuals; (2) 

the breaching party violated the APO on 

three occasions; and (3) the breaching 

party did not discover the breaches. 

The Commission issued a private 

letter of reprimand to the economic 

consultant responsible for creating, 

reviewing, and disseminating the slide 

to unauthorized individuals. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 17, 2024. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30518 Filed 12–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decree Under the Clean Air 

Act 

On December 17, 2024, the United 

States lodged a proposed Consent 

Decree and Environmental Settlement 

Agreement with the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern 

District of Texas in the Chapter 11 

bankruptcy cases filed by Vertex Energy, 

Inc., as Lead Debtor, and its Affiliated 

Debtors in the case captioned In re 

Vertex Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 24– 

90507–CML. 

The proposed Consent Decree 

requires the Debtors, and after the 

effective date of the Debtors’ plan of 

reorganization, the Reorganized Debtors, 

to retire over 18.7 million renewable 

identification number credits, currently 

estimated to cost approximately $15 

million, to satisfy the Debtors’ 2023 and 

2024 renewable volume obligations by 

March 31, 2025. 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the 

proposed Consent Decree. Comments 

should be addressed to the Assistant 

Attorney General, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division, and should 

refer to In re Vertex Energy, Inc., et al., 

D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–2–1–13141. All 

comments must be submitted no later 

than ten (10) days after the publication 

date of this notice. Comments may be 

submitted either by email or by mail: 

To submit 

comments: Send them to: 

By email ....... pubcomment-ees.enrd@

usdoj.gov. 

By mail ......... Assistant Attorney General, 

U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. 

Box 7611, Washington, DC 

20044–7611. 

Any comments submitted in writing 

may be filed by the United States in 

whole or in part on the public court 

docket without notice to the commenter. 

During the public comment period, 

the proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined and downloaded at this 

Justice Department website: https://

www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. 

If you require assistance accessing the 

proposed Consent Decree, you may 

request assistance by email or by mail 

to the addresses provided above for 

submitting comments. 

Patricia McKenna, 

Deputy Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30505 Filed 12–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Information Collection Activities; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of information collection; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as 

part of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, 

conducts a pre-clearance consultation 

program to provide the general public 

and Federal agencies with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This 

program helps to ensure that requested 

data can be provided in the desired 

format, reporting burden (time and 

financial resources) is minimized, 

collection instruments are clearly 

understood, and the impact of collection 

requirements on respondents can be 

properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments 

concerning the proposed reinstatement 

with change of the ‘‘Contingent Work 

Supplement (CWS) to the Current 

Population Survey (CPS)’’ to be 

conducted in May 2025. A copy of the 

proposed information collection request 

can be obtained by contacting the 

individual listed below in the Addresses 

section of this notice. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office listed in the 

Addresses section of this notice on or 

before February 21, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Erin 

Good, BLS Clearance Officer, Division 

of Management Systems, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, by email to BLS_PRA_

Public@bls.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Good, BLS Clearance Officer, at 202– 

691–7628 (this is not a toll-free 

number). (See ADDRESSES section.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The purpose of this request for review 

is for the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS) to obtain clearance for a 

reinstatement with change for the 

Contingent Work Supplement (CWS) to 

the Current Population Survey (CPS), 

which was last conducted in July 2023. 

The proposed CWS questions focus on 

people with contingent jobs—those that 

people do not expect to last or that are 

temporary—and workers in alternative 

employment arrangements, such as 

independent contractors, on-call 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES